Explaining the recently adopted
Allocations Document
An exhibition showing future development planned for the Rochford District opened around the District in the week beginning 3/3/14.
The Allocations Plan forms part of what is known as the development plan for the District, and planning decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan.
The allocation of land within the Allocations Plan does not automatically grant consent for the land in question to be developed. It is the Council’s view that these sites are those most suitable for development
Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio holder for Planning, Transport and Heritage, Councillor Keith Hudson said: “I hope people can get along to this exhibition so they can see how we expect the District to look in years to come. This Allocations Document not only meets Government housing targets for the District, but also gives us the armoury to fight developments in areas that we have not identified for development, or that do not conform to our requirements for appropriate infrastructure improvements.”
The following is a series of frequently asked questions, answered by Councillor Hudson.
Why is the Council allocating additional land for housing?
The Government requires Local Councils to ensure that, at any given time, there is enough land available to provide for five years worth of their area’s housing need. We are required to ensure land is available for 250 new homes to be built every year. We reached a point where no more sites were available for housing, so we had to identify additional land. Plans that have now been adopted identify sufficient land up to and including 2025.
A number of people are concerned about how much new development is being planned for – why did the Council not simply say “no” to the Government’s demands to provide land for housing?
Let us say we took the position that we would not accommodate any more homes in this area. If we produced a Plan that said this, the Government would not permit us to adopt it. We know this, because others have tried and have failed. If we refused to produce a Plan at all, then it would be determined that this District had a totally permissive approach to development, as prescribed within the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore developers would still get permission to build even if the Council refused. Just so long as their proposals were deliverable and sustainable, there would be no limit to the numbers, and no control whatsoever to the locations. This has already happened in other Districts where they had no plans in place.
To reiterate: With no plan in place, development would still happen, but the Council would have little say on how many homes, where, and how development would take place, and what infrastructure should accompany those developments.
By dealing with this thorny issue we have been able to restrict the release of our green belt land to less than 1%, heaven only knows what would have happened if we had left it to chance.
I understand that a lot of people are concerned about the present level of development, but this is not something that is in the Council’s control. I think it is right that the Council make decisions about where development should go rather than leaving it, effectively, to developers and Central Government. These decisions are difficult, but we have had to grasp the nettle.
The alternative – burying our heads in the sand, refusing to make the tough calls, and leaving it to developers and Central Government – would have been far easier for the Council: we would not have had to make unpopular decisions. But in my view, such an approach would have been cowardly, and would have left the whole District vulnerable to unplanned and uncontrolled development.
So what Plans address these issues?
There are two plans that are key to where and when development takes place. The first is The Core Strategy. This sets out our overarching approach to managing new development in the District. It covers a whole host of issues, but in relation to housing there are three key aspects:
1. It requires 35% of all new homes to be built to be affordable homes, thereby ensuring homes for our local community, local people on our housing waiting list, young people who may need a hand up onto the housing ladder.
2. It sets the general locations where development (housing and employment) will be steered to.
3. Perhaps most importantly, by identifying which areas the housing may go to, it ensures that the vast majority of the District’s Green Belt is protected from development.
The Core Strategy was adopted in 2011 without which, we would have seen developers making applications for random developments throughout the District.
………………………………
Our second document is The Allocations Plan which provides further detail, identifying specific sites within the general locations as specified in the Core Strategy. Thus providing detailed policies to ensure that development is appropriate to the location and is complete with the necessary infrastructure.
Talking of infrastructure, a number of people have expressed concerns about the impact of infrastructure from the proposed development. How is this issue being addressed?
Infrastructure is a key issue and another reason why it is best that the Local Council puts plans in place rather than simply letting development happen on an ad-
There were a number of objections to the Plans. How have people’s views been taken into account?
Community involvement has played a major role in deciding where – and how much – development takes place. For example, people may recall that some years ago the Council’s original preferred option was for 1,800 homes in Rayleigh, but we listened to Resident’s concerns and the number was reduced to 550. The same for South Hawkwell, where the number of dwellings was halved due to the feedback we received.
However, I accept that – unfortunately – we will never be able to please everyone, but the homes have to go somewhere and, as I said earlier, it is much better that the Council make these difficult decisions, trying to account for Resident’s concerns where ever possible, rather than for these decisions to be left to developers and other outsiders.
Why is the Council allocating a site for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation? And why is the Council proposing it be municipally run?
The same Government requirements apply to accommodation for travellers as for bricks and mortar accommodation. In other words, we are required to ensure an adequate supply of land is available for Traveller sites, and if we do not we will simply have sites appearing in the District in an unplanned manner. The fact that we have not previously allocated enough land for Traveller sites has meant that we have lost appeals in the past. Allocating a site now will put us in a much stronger position if and when unauthorised sites appear in the future.
The Council’s avowed intention in this matter is to ensure that the Traveller’s Site to be provided near the Fairglen interchange at the junction of the A127 with the A1245, is municipally owned and controlled, and to this end we have reached agreement with Essex County Council, in principal, for them to be the administrators on our behalf. They are the Public Authority with considerable experience and have a fine track record of success in this field having similar establishments in other parts of Essex.
Top of page
